Today's paper had a similar Op-Ed [vancouversun.com] piece about needing better copyright enforcement.

The complaint is the same - people who leak unaired episodes onto the 'net, and thus they need stronger laws to protect that.

What I don't get is why don't they try to find the origin of the leak? If it costs as much as they claim, surely the one leaking it onto the 'net in the first place would be the best place to go, than the thousands of others to play whack-a-mole with.

A simple case of "clean your own house before shitting in everyone else's" or some such. It's just like camcording a movie - no one likes watching camcorded crap, especially since a leaked DVD screener offers far better quality and presentation.

Perhaps these production companies would rather sue everyone the horse visited after it left the barn, than to actually close the barn door. Fix the leaks first that's letting everyone download unreleased episodes prior to airing first, rather than trying to go after everyone who's spreading the leaked episodes. It's easier that way because no law can prevent it from spreading.

Google could ignore any takedown request citing technicalities, but it wouldn't be good for business. Generally if a copyright holder asks, Google should err on the side of caution and take down the video if the copyright ownership can be verified. The alternative would be riskier. After all many television stations in other countries have ties to the government thus entangling Google in a state matter.

Well gee, if Google can't handle policing their own website then they shouldn't be in the Youtube business. Saying "its not technically possible to identify infringements so they can't be required to do it" is not a valid answer (and probably incorrect - I'm sure they could do it if they were forced to). I'm amazed at the love of Google here. The burden should be on Google who is hosting the content. I did find it humorous how you compare Google to the rest of the population of humanity though.

No one is asking for Google to "protect" anyone, they are just asking Google to not host content that they do not have the right to have. Google has the resources to do it, they just choose not to because it wouldn't be profitable enough. Well boo-hoo for Google.